9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave heard Sri Atul K Alur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Manjunath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent on the merits of this matter. This is an appeal by the dealer under section 24 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act") directed against the order dated December 24, 2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-1 (copy at annexure C), who in exercise of his suo motu powers under section 22A(2) of the Act had revised and set aside the order passed by the first appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (appeals and audit) (copy at annexure B) who had under the order dated August 11, 2003 set aside the levy of penalty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority. The appellate authority noticed that the proposition notice issued on March 4, 2002 had never called upon the assessee to produce either the books of accounts or form 3 and had only called upon the assessee to file supporting document of the invoice and which the dealer had produced and had also been accepted and in this view of the matter while there was no justification to levy any penalty, also was of the view that the proposition notice never gave an opportunity to the dealer proposing levy of penalty for non-production of the books of accounts and form 3 which was otherwise not a requirement as it was not required to be produced before the check-post officer at the time of the check of the vehicle. However, the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d reversing the order of the appellate authority. Sri H.M. Manjunath, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that there was infraction at the time when the checking officer intercepted the vehicle as the person-in-charge of the vehicle which was found carrying goods failed to produce supporting documents for the tax having been paid in respect of goods being transported and therefore it was a clear case of violation of the requirement of law and the levy of penalty was justified by the assessing authority and it is rightly restored by the revisional authority. We have bestowed our attention to the submission made at the Bar, perused the orders and the record. While section 28A(4) of the Act does contemplate of penalty for noncom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
